2001: A Space Odyssey

We would always drive the long way so we could go over the scary bridge; not the quick drive on the four lane. It was about 30 miles to the cinerama theater. When you sat right down front, your whole field of vision was encompassed by the curved screen.

I guess we did this every weekend for 3 months. We'd take whatever (acid, usually) and go see 2001.

When the monkey throws the bone in the air and it turns into a spaceship, the folks we took for the first time would jump so far out of their chairs that there were actually dents on the ceiling. Well, OK; that's an exaggeration. But there was more than one strong soul who had to go sit in the car 'cause it was just too damn much to take.

Imagine that now while your kids watch Scream III or The Haunting. Also think about the difference in the overall message.

Kubrick really knew what Arthur C. Clarke was trying to say in his story, and I doubt if anyone else in that time could have made this movie.

Of course, when you watch it now, it seems rather slow and droll, doesn't it? Here we are in the year 2000.

ADDENDUM: As for Yossarian's claim about which came first, this is from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

2001 a Space Odyssey is a name given to two different works in two different media. The most well known is the movie, directed by the late Stanley Kubrick. The only slightly less well known is the book by Arthur C. Clarke, who may or may not be deceased.

Both book and movie were written in a collaborative effort between their respective creators; in truth it could be said that both Clarke and Kubrick wrote both peices, the storyline anyway. Even though there is some divergence between the two forms due to the pressures of their respective media, they were written simultaneously, a very unusual circumstance.

2001 is ultimately about letting go of the material world and the tools we use to manipulate it, which become crutches. This film gives no answers, but rather points to where we are going, and suggests a change of course.

2001: A Space Odyssey is a movie that I've spent hours thinking about. Mainly since the movie itself is slow enough to actually let the viewer think about it. One of my favorite themes was the whole thing with tools. The monolith inspires the first pre-human creature to start using tools. Of course, the first use of tools is to kill things. First, other creatures for meat, but then another member of the species. The humanoid creates the tool (by simply picking it up in this case), and then kills with it. Then, in the future we are presented with HAL. In one of the coolest death scenes in cinema, HAL kills Dave's companion in the silence of space. I'm sure we all knew what it sounded like inside that guy's helmet though. HAL then systematically kills the rest of the crew by turning off their life support. If asked, I'm guessing most people would offhandedly agree with the statement that HAL has committed murder. But, HAL is a machine. Just a tool. Can a machine really be held responsible for murder? Who's fault is it then? While you're toying over this question Stanley Kubrick throws in an even more disturbing problem. Dave manages to get into HAL's "brain" and much in the same way HAL had killed the sleeping passengers, Dave slowly dismantles him. The entire time HAL protests and then finally fades away, "Daisy...daisy". Now, the question is, Did Dave murder HAL? It's also interesting note how machine-like Dave is, especially in HAL's "death scene", where HAL seems the more human of the two.

One could easily split hairs and draw out a discussion for hours on this disconnect between the philosophies, but at least one possible conclusion jumps out immediately: Kubrick has no hope for anthromatic progression. (Yay for making up terms.) This idea is rather easy to fall back on, given his other works. In short, Kubrick implies that nothing short of divine intervention could kick humanity out of its current rut.